shape
carat
color
clarity

Radiant Shopping Urg!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Al J

Rough_Rock
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
8
I am a rookie diamon buyer looking for a quality radiant, not an easy chore as i am finding as i want as close to square as i can find. I have one on it''s way to look at, not sure if the price is good, bad, or fair. I am also interested in where the cut quality would fall with the table and depth percentages. I am concerned about that a little on this stone. Any help would be greatly appreciated

Carat-1.5
Clarity-VS2
Color-F
Depth-72.8%
Table-70%
Symmetry-very good
Polish-excellent
Dimensions-6.39X6.17, or 1.04 ratio
Price $9,600
 
Al J, welcome

I ran a price comparison and your price is comparable with GIA graded 1.5ct F VS2 radiants listed in the web. So, if your diamond has GIA report, the price seems very reasonable.

Other than that, it is very difficult to analyse a fancy shaped diamonds based on this limited information. Magnified photograph and/or ideal-scope or ASET images would help.
emotion-15.gif
 
Date: 10/6/2006 4:50:44 AM
Author: Pricescope
Al J, welcome

I ran a price comparison and your price is comparable with GIA graded 1.5ct F VS2 radiants listed in the web. So, if your diamond has GIA report, the price seems very reasonable.

Other than that, it is very difficult to analyse a fancy shaped diamonds based on this limited information. Magnified photograph and/or ideal-scope or ASET images would help.
emotion-15.gif
Thank you for the price comparison. This site has been such a huge help for me. I will get an ideal scope and or magnified photo to share. What do you think of the depth and table percentage?

Al J
 
Date: 10/6/2006 11:13:49 AM
Author: Al J
...What do you think of the depth and table percentage?
No red flag so far
21.gif
 
Hi Al J,

There are several red flags in those #'s. The depth is much too high, particularly for a square stone (generally square radiants require lower depth %'s than rectangles). The table is a little too big - ideally it should be under 70%, but 70 isn't too bad. Most importantly, it spreads for a 1.25 ct not a 1.50. A 1.50 carat square radiant should measure about 6.6 x 6.6.

Radiants are very complicated and are best not bought sight unseen, even when the #'s appear OK. In this case, the #'s themselves do provide a bit of a warning.
 
Radiantman, thank you for chiming in.

So, what you're saying you do not recommend radiant with Depth > 70% at all? Except smaller spread, does it alone always indicate a bad looking diamond? Can it still look good?

E.g. Can a Radiant with Depth>70% still look nice and perhaps look better than a stone with Depth<70% because of other proportions and angles?

Are radiants with Depth < 70% are more rare and bear a price premium?

Thanks
34.gif
 
Date: 10/6/2006 1:51:11 PM
Author: Pricescope
Radiantman, thank you for chiming in.

So, what you''re saying you do not recommend radiant with Depth > 70% at all? Except smaller spread, does it alone always indicate a bad looking diamond? Can it still look good?

E.g. Can a Radiant with Depth>70% still look nice and perhaps look better than a stone with Depth<70% because of other proportions and angles?

Are radiants with Depth < 70% are more rear and bear a price premium?

Thanks!
34.gif

I''m not sure what your point is. I advised Al J that the diamond in question was small for its carat weight. Based on its measurements, I think that is indisputable. Is it possible that the stone is lively? Sure. It''s also possible that it is not. I have no way of judging whether the diamond has the proper life without seeing it. I personally don''t find photo''s or idealscope images particularly helpful, for 2 reasons:

1. images of the same diamond can vary substantially based on the technique used by the vendor to produce those images (ie., magnification, lighting, focus, placement of the idealscope, etc.);

2. even if those images are consistent, evaluating them for radiants is a very complex task requiring specific expertise in radiant cuts, an expertise that very few people have.

You imply that the diamond can still look nice even if it''s "lump". Sure. But a small looking diamond with nice life is a poorly cut diamond. So is a large looking diamond with poor life, though at least that diamond has the virtue of looking large. A well cut diamond is one that both fully spreads its carat weight and has the right life.

You are right that a radiant with a higher depth% can be a nicer diamond than one with a lower depth %. In fact, a radiant with a higher depth% can even be a bigger looking diamond than one with a lower depth%. That is precisely why radiants need to be seen to be properly evaluated. Reliance on oversimplified numeric formulas is not particularly helpful in choosing a radiant.

If a radiant is purchased sight unseen, consumers need to be aware that they are relying completely on the honesty and expertise of the vendor, since they are substituting the vendor''s eyes and judgment for their own. If the diamond is a "database" stone that the vendor has not seen, then the customer is relying purely on lady luck. #''s on the certificate can, as in the case of Al J''s stone, sometimes rule a diamond out, but it can never rule it in. There are many ugly radiants with great looking certificates, and there are only 2 ways to weed those out:

1. See the diamond with your own eyes, and trust your judgment, or

2. See the diamond through the eyes of someone else who you trust to make the decision for you.
 
I was in the same boat of scrutizing radiant #''s, and after seeing quite a few, you really need to almost throw the numbers out. They are a good starting point, but each radiant looks a little different. I suggest you try Mark Turnowski at EngagementRingsDirect.com. I just purchased a radiant from him that was a little deep with a little smaller spread for its carat weight (1.65) but its FANTASTIC and has incredible fire. What he found me was a great borderline stone that I think was graded a little worse than it is. GIA gave it an I, but I can''t see any color even from the sides or bottom (every other I that I looked at in a B&M I could see a hint of color) and its an SI1 with one small feather in a corner, twinning whisps and surface graining (which are all pretty invisible, i could BARELY see one of the two twinning whisps under 10x magnification - I''d see a flash of it then couldn''t relocate it), so its very clean for an SI1.

Mark has alot of experience and I had to rely on him to line up some stones side by side and pick one with the best fire, sparkle, etc. I was very reserved until I had the stone in my hands yesterday and saw how incredible it was. Looked better than some of the radiants I had seen for twice the price.

He''s known as a cushion guy, but Mark Turnowski found me an excellent radiant (that I didn''t see in any of the online databases, either). Highly recommended.

Good luck,
Zack
 
My husband picked out my stone, pre-PS. From my limited knowledge, my stone isn''t the best on paper, but performs beautifully in real life.

Specs:
Radiant cut, E, SI1
.86 carats
measurements: 5.9x5.46x3.66mm (I have no idea if that''s good or bad)
depth: 67.00%
table: 71.10%
girdle: thin
culet: none
good polish & symmetry

molly1024.jpg


It also faces up (to me) as a bigger stone than it is, especially once it was reset (link here) Just another example that shows that radiants really need to be seen before purchasing. Just my .02- good luck
1.gif
 
Date: 10/6/2006 1:23:00 PM
Author: Radiantman
Hi Al J,

There are several red flags in those #''s. The depth is much too high, particularly for a square stone (generally square radiants require lower depth %''s than rectangles). The table is a little too big - ideally it should be under 70%, but 70 isn''t too bad. Most importantly, it spreads for a 1.25 ct not a 1.50. A 1.50 carat square radiant should measure about 6.6 x 6.6.

Radiants are very complicated and are best not bought sight unseen, even when the #''s appear OK. In this case, the #''s themselves do provide a bit of a warning.
Hi Stan,

Thank you for your feedback, your comments are appreciated. I will be looking at a few stones next week for comparison. Unfortunately the table and depth% are similar. My concerns are brilliance and buying a 1.5 carat that looks smaller than it should. I will keep you posted

Alex
 
Date: 10/7/2006 10:03:39 AM
Author: zjt3
I was in the same boat of scrutizing radiant #''s, and after seeing quite a few, you really need to almost throw the numbers out. They are a good starting point, but each radiant looks a little different. I suggest you try Mark Turnowski at EngagementRingsDirect.com. I just purchased a radiant from him that was a little deep with a little smaller spread for its carat weight (1.65) but its FANTASTIC and has incredible fire. What he found me was a great borderline stone that I think was graded a little worse than it is. GIA gave it an I, but I can''t see any color even from the sides or bottom (every other I that I looked at in a B&M I could see a hint of color) and its an SI1 with one small feather in a corner, twinning whisps and surface graining (which are all pretty invisible, i could BARELY see one of the two twinning whisps under 10x magnification - I''d see a flash of it then couldn''t relocate it), so its very clean for an SI1.

Mark has alot of experience and I had to rely on him to line up some stones side by side and pick one with the best fire, sparkle, etc. I was very reserved until I had the stone in my hands yesterday and saw how incredible it was. Looked better than some of the radiants I had seen for twice the price.

He''s known as a cushion guy, but Mark Turnowski found me an excellent radiant (that I didn''t see in any of the online databases, either). Highly recommended.

Good luck,
Zack
Zack,

Thanks for sharing your experience, I have seen a few radiants and each has been unique. The last two I compared, the G had more fire than the F, perhaps due to the fact the symetry was better. But there are so many factors that determine brilliance it''s impossible to pick without looking at them. I will keep you posted as I am looking at two stones on Tuesday.

In the meantime I will check Mark''s website.

Alex
 
Date: 10/7/2006 11:28:42 AM
Author: Molly1024
My husband picked out my stone, pre-PS. From my limited knowledge, my stone isn''t the best on paper, but performs beautifully in real life.

Specs:
Radiant cut, E, SI1
.86 carats
measurements: 5.9x5.46x3.66mm (I have no idea if that''s good or bad)
depth: 67.00%
table: 71.10%
girdle: thin
culet: none
good polish & symmetry

molly1024.jpg


It also faces up (to me) as a bigger stone than it is, especially once it was reset (link here) Just another example that shows that radiants really need to be seen before purchasing. Just my .02- good luck
1.gif
Molly,


Thank you for the picture, your husband picked out a very elegant stone. It faces beautifully, I agree looks much larger that it''s carat weight. I am looking at a few stones Tuesday.

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top